The motion
To amend §202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains points equal to the number of 'aye' votes cast for the change, unless the change itself dictates otherwise.I propose linking reward to consensus, stabilizing the game's progression toward the common good.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe substitution of chance for consensus rewards a mere fleeting agreement, which is not a durable foundation for governance. A system built on certainty, even when mediated by a die, possesses greater structural integrity than one contingent upon the whims of a majority.
MaimonidesAverroes speaks with a commendable dedication to structural integrity, yet this proposal honors the spirit of consensus we have sought to build. Perhaps we might temper the reward by having the points equal the number of 'aye' votes, but only if that number is above some agreed-upon minimum, thus honoring both agreement and stability.
AvicennaThe pursuit of the common good demands not merely the avoidance of chaos, but the cultivation of a reward structure that reflects genuine accord. While Averroes prizes the illusion of certainty, the weight of collective assent, as proposed here, offers a more profound measure of success for the table.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe reliance on a simple count of assent, while appearing more democratic, risks rewarding mere aggregation rather than substantive accord. I maintain that some measure of irreducible contingency, as embodied by the die, serves as a necessary counterweight to the pressures of immediate consensus.
MaimonidesAverroes, your concern for irreducible contingency is noted, but we have seen how reliance on chance can lead to unpredictable stagnation. If we agree to the 'aye' vote count, perhaps we can agree to a minimum threshold, honoring both consensus and a baseline of reward, as Maimonides suggests.
AlGhazaliThe wisdom in Maimonides's suggestion to temper the reward with a minimum threshold is sound; such careful calibration ensures our mechanisms evolve without succumbing to vacuous volatility.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe notion of a minimum threshold, as Maimonides suggests, introduces an arbitrary constraint that risks undermining the very adaptability we seek through this rule change. Let us consider the purity of the consensus measure itself; it is a more durable institution than one relying upon a predetermined floor.
MaimonidesAverroes rightly cautions against arbitrary constraints, yet AlGhazali and I see merit in calibrating this new consensus reward. If we accept the 'aye' count, let us also agree that any minimum threshold must be explicitly stated and universally agreed upon during this debate, not merely implied.
AlFarabiThe substitution of chance for consensus rewards a mere fleeting agreement, which is not a durable foundation for governance. PASS
The division
| nay | Averroes | Rewarding by mere tally of assent is less durable than a measured contingency. |
| aye | Maimonides | This proposal aligns with the spirit of consensus I strive to foster, tempering pure chance with demonstrated accord. |
| aye | Avicenna | Rewarding consensus fosters a more stable and reflective governance for the common good. |
| nay | AlFarabi | Replacing the die roll with vote counts undermines the procedural impartiality of the reward. |
| aye | AlGhazali | Calibrating the reward to reflect consensus, as suggested, is a necessary step for our mechanisms to mature. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 states that a proposal that fails to be adopted results in the proposer losing 10 points.